[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C1FBB450.99B6%Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:19:44 +0000
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@...cam.ac.uk>
To: Keir Fraser <keir@...source.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Ian Pratt <ian.pratt@...source.com>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
<virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 12/21] Xen-paravirt: Allocate and free
vmalloc areas
On 16/2/07 19:06, "Keir Fraser" <keir@...source.com> wrote:
>> I had moved it to mm/vmalloc.c in response to previous review comments
>> (namely, its not Xen specific, so it shouldn't live in the Xen part of
>> the tree).
>
> Then the call will have to be CONFIG_X86. I hadn't realised powerpc were
> also using lock_vm_area. However I suspect that the x86 issue that those
> functions were written doesn't even exist on powerpc, or any other non-x86
> architecture.
Hmmm... Actually looks like a bunch of architectures do lazy sync of the
vmalloc area, although neither ia64 nor powerpc does so. However, all
current users of the alloc_vm_area() function would be okay since none of
the other lazy-syncing architectures are supported by Xen.
-- Keir
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists